SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Insurance industry officials warn that Uber drivers don't [always] have the proper accident coverage and are putting themselves and the public at risk when they get behind the wheel. That stark message, and a call for the city to regulate Uber drivers, came during what a pair of insurance officials and Councillor Jim Karygiannis called a "technical briefing" at Toronto City Hall Thursday.
They said many drivers for the controversial ride-sharing service are hiding their activity from insurers. By law, drivers must declare to their insurance company if they're driving passengers for hire so the insurer can provide the proper policy and accident coverage.
[...]
But Philomena Comerford, CEO of Baird MacGregor Insurance Brokers, said in many cases this isn't happening with Uber drivers. That means Ontario's motorists could be hit with higher premiums because of "significant and unexpected" injury claims.
"This problem comes at time when the insurance industry is working hard with the Ontario government to reduce personal consumer automobile insurance rates which do not contemplate this commercial activity," she said.
MacGregor said Uber's $5-million supplementary policy covers the company, but not the drivers themselves.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 31 2015, @10:18PM
Everyone wants a cut of the disruptive new technologies, earned or not.
Imagine if ice harvesters [forgottennewengland.com] demanded a cut of every refrigerator sale, because it cuts into their business?
Imagine if milkmen demanded a percentage of every gallon sold in a supermarket?
Imagine if buggy whip makers demanded a payment for every gas and brake pedal made?
Imagine if club makers demanded a slice of every sword produced?
We are seeing the same today with taxi medallion owners, most whom have seen a fall in their resale value and rental rates, panicking because their precious state monopoly is no longer worth as much as it was. Instead of embracing change, or trying to convince customers of their added value (security?) they are again pleading with the state to protect their unfree market. Instead of trying to compete, they point to the barriers to entry and try to convince politicians they should expand these barriers rather than tear them down. This may dilute their medallion value a bit but not as much as a free market for rides would do. What it will do is cut into the part-time drivers who won't want the hassle or expense of the privilege of paying for these things, pushing them from the marketplace.
There is at least one [bostonglobe.com] "Boston Uber Rapist" [google.com] the protectionists point to as an example of a "security threat" which they say justifies their corrupt system. How exactly their system would be effective against this has yet to be explained. Background checks will only find arrests and convictions, it's not a sure bet that anyone who passes will forever be angelic.
My understanding is Uber provides a million dollars of coverage on behalf of the drivers, and this is paid for by their cut of the price of the ride (20%, I'm told).
The last line of the summary should read Comerford said, not MacGregor since Comerford is the CEO and Baird MacGregor is the name of the company.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]